I'm not so sure that the migration of capitol into BCH from BTC is the market abandoning BTC for BCH. If that were to occur, I'd expect to see the ratios for LTC/BTC to go up as BTC goes down. I suppose one could argue that BTC and LTC track each other; however, I'd point to the past month of flat LTC values as BTC jumped as a negative indicator of this relationship.

One reason will be, that bitmain accept only BCH for L3+ in this batch. And this batch is huuuuge. Most people have to buy BCH to buy L3+ , this give a strong support and positive indicator for trader. And after ~500usd / bch i think its more fomo + support from L3+ buyer. But we will see.

another reason can be an "leverage" effect. The BTC supply is "incorrect", because many people lost wallet, so there BTC are locked. With BCH fork the same amount of coins are locked too + many BCH are not earned because people dont want touch the paper BTC in reason of fees or fear about misstakes by taking BCH, or have the BTC at fork in multisig pubs or spent the fork possible coins. In this case is the circulating BCH supply lower then the BTC supply.

Try to understand the words, before writing "false" without any arguments.

said someone without arguments

Here is some readings for you guys about blocksize arguments;

Taken from the Tim Ferris Podcast interview with Nick Szabo and Naval Ravikant.

Tim Ferris: Nick, what are the biggest misconceptions or common misunderstandings related to cryptocurrency or Bitcoin? If there’s anything where you’re like "God, this drives me nuts. If I hear one more person who should know better."

Nick Szabo: We could get into the whole block size issue because there is a parameter. We shouldn’t but I probably will talk about it a little bit. There’s a technical security parameter called the block size. How the general public glommed onto this I do not know. But there’s an obsessive group of people who think of this as some kind of artificial barrier to more transactions per second on Bitcoin. Really it’s job is that it’s a fence preventing people from overwhelmingly flooding the network with lots of transactions that the full nodes I talked about can’t handle, that transaction history keeps building and building.

Naval Ravikant: At very simple level if if every computer is throwing a copy of every transaction then you can’t have an infinite number of transactions because the computer will explode. And so what you do is if you keep increasing the number of transactions to too quickly then you only allow a smaller and smaller shrinking set of computers to run the code which reduces who’s actually in charge of security. Before you might have had a million then you’re down to a hundred thousand big computers. Then there’s only a few thousand large players then down to 5 people who can store the entire history. Then you’re basically back to central banks.So the debate is should we keep allowing more and more transactions. Because what if everyone wants to buy a Starbucks using Bitcoin. Or should be only limited to very high value transactions and instead preserve the diversity of people who can who can run the code.

Nick Szabo: Yeah I mean this shouldn’t even be a public debate. It’s like the public debating and voting on the graphite reactors that prevent a nuclear reactor from overheating and melting down. There are certain things you should let the engineers decide. And this is one of them. And for some reason there’s just a whole group of people who want to pull out those graphite moderator rods and have it going full steam.

Naval Ravikant: Yeah. One of the problems with Bitcoin is that because a lot of people hold a little bit of Bitcoin. Everyone has a financial incentive and they’re all talking their own book and they get really emotional about it. Nick had this great tweet that I liked the best way to destroy your investment in Bitcoin is to gather an Internet mob to go and redesign Bitcoin. Right. And that’s a little bit of what’s happening right now.

I've read that argument. While I understand the theoretical part of the idea that everyone shouldn't be able to buy coffees with Bitcoin, I don't think that matters in reality.

The problem is that there's nobody, even the Core developers, who can dictate that cryptocurrencies should be used a certain way. Transaction space is badly needed right now. For example, we didn't wait for the Core to come up with a solution or to tell us how we should use bitcoins - we simply migrated to litecoins as the default payout coin. That's why we have 1100 litecoin transactions per day and fewer than 40 Bitcoin transactions. We weren't going to stop all business until the Lightning Network was available, and even then we weren't going to tie up thousands of dollars in Lightning nodes.

We're seeing this happen with Bitcoin Cash now. I understand that some people truly believe that the Core's vision is the better solution, but the market is moving elsewhere because all they care about is being able to buy their coffees (or their miners) with cryptocurrency. People who want bitcoins now are using litecoins to transfer value between exchanges to buy them at the other exchange. You can see how the industry is growing at a rate so ridiculous that we can't even get enough capacity to satisfy our existing customers. The only way the Core remains relevant is if growth slows enough that they have time to implement their vision, and that seems very unlikely to happen.

The last 2 days while BHC raised to 2800 usd what happened:1. I never mined so many BTC in 2 days2. I bought cheap miners with Bitcoin Cash from bitmain. I never will get them so cheap ( so I hope )3. I can buy anywhere Caffee with DebitCard, but not with litecoin, but Bitcoin

Steve Sokolowski wrote:I've read that argument. While I understand the theoretical part of the idea that everyone shouldn't be able to buy coffees with Bitcoin, I don't think that matters in reality.

The problem is that there's nobody, even the Core developers, who can dictate that cryptocurrencies should be used a certain way. Transaction space is badly needed right now. For example, we didn't wait for the Core to come up with a solution or to tell us how we should use bitcoins - we simply migrated to litecoins as the default payout coin. That's why we have 1100 litecoin transactions per day and fewer than 40 Bitcoin transactions. We weren't going to stop all business until the Lightning Network was available, and even then we weren't going to tie up thousands of dollars in Lightning nodes.

We're seeing this happen with Bitcoin Cash now. I understand that some people truly believe that the Core's vision is the better solution, but the market is moving elsewhere because all they care about is being able to buy their coffees (or their miners) with cryptocurrency. People who want bitcoins now are using litecoins to transfer value between exchanges to buy them at the other exchange. You can see how the industry is growing at a rate so ridiculous that we can't even get enough capacity to satisfy our existing customers. The only way the Core remains relevant is if growth slows enough that they have time to implement their vision, and that seems very unlikely to happen.

So i guess BTC is a bit in the same decision like you guys had on fighting growth/expansion plans, as you probably experienced yourself the solution won't be there without doing a good evaluation and reaching decent consensus, this will take some time though.

BCH feels for me like the people over here yelling at you that you should hurry up with expansion no matter what, but you know better yourself.. since there is a lot behind the homepage (or the coin), that needs to find a way to implement solutions that are capable of turning out good in the long run.

I wonder if we use the usecase: Visa, what would we reach with BCH? or with 2nd/3rd layer solutions or is BTC/BCH as major payment solution just not worth it. Then we come up to future predictions (I think Lee is right that BTC will be a store of value, since there is nothing more in it for BTC from a technical view and practical experience) Will we have a shitmix of a lot of coins doing the job all together or are we waiting for that new coin (or new backbone for a coin) that is capable of reaching sizes like visa?

Steve Sokolowski wrote:I've read that argument. While I understand the theoretical part of the idea that everyone shouldn't be able to buy coffees with Bitcoin, I don't think that matters in reality.

The problem is that there's nobody, even the Core developers, who can dictate that cryptocurrencies should be used a certain way. Transaction space is badly needed right now. For example, we didn't wait for the Core to come up with a solution or to tell us how we should use bitcoins - we simply migrated to litecoins as the default payout coin. That's why we have 1100 litecoin transactions per day and fewer than 40 Bitcoin transactions. We weren't going to stop all business until the Lightning Network was available, and even then we weren't going to tie up thousands of dollars in Lightning nodes.

We're seeing this happen with Bitcoin Cash now. I understand that some people truly believe that the Core's vision is the better solution, but the market is moving elsewhere because all they care about is being able to buy their coffees (or their miners) with cryptocurrency. People who want bitcoins now are using litecoins to transfer value between exchanges to buy them at the other exchange. You can see how the industry is growing at a rate so ridiculous that we can't even get enough capacity to satisfy our existing customers. The only way the Core remains relevant is if growth slows enough that they have time to implement their vision, and that seems very unlikely to happen.

So i guess BTC is a bit in the same decision like you guys had on fighting growth/expansion plans, as you probably experienced yourself the solution won't be there without doing a good evaluation and reaching decent consensus, this will take some time though.

BCH feels for me like the people over here yelling at you that you should hurry up with expansion no matter what, but you know better yourself.. since there is a lot behind the homepage (or the coin), that needs to find a way to implement solutions that are capable of turning out good in the long run.

I wonder if we use the usecase: Visa, what would we reach with BCH? or with 2nd/3rd layer solutions or is BTC/BCH as major payment solution just not worth it. Then we come up to future predictions (I think Lee is right that BTC will be a store of value, since there is nothing more in it for BTC from a technical view and practical experience) Will we have a shitmix of a lot of coins doing the job all together or are we waiting for that new coin (or new backbone for a coin) that is capable of reaching sizes like visa?

I think the answer to your question has already been settled. The future is a world where there are a large number of coins, and there are auto-exchanging wallets. If we could afford a money transmission license, we could make a huge killing on being able to accept any coin as payment and transmit it to the merchant in a different coin.

Our evaluation took a long time, in part, because of the Core. We see the Core as the greatest threat to the industry's growth right now, because they are preventing the immediate expansion of capacity that we and others need to conduct business. I don't care whatsoever about what their grand vision is for the long-term future with bitcoin storing value or whatever. All people who use the network care about is whether they can use the network. Litecoin allows us to do that, which is why we conduct all our business in litecoins now.

Coinbase's addition of ETH and LTC was what made it viable for us to expand because we knew our business model would be affordable. Incidentally, it also guaranteed a multi-coin world because of how it is exposing everyday users to the improved fees and transaction times on those other networks.

Steve Sokolowski wrote:I think the answer to your question has already been settled. The future is a world where there are a large number of coins, and there are auto-exchanging wallets. If we could afford a money transmission license, we could make a huge killing on being able to accept any coin as payment and transmit it to the merchant in a different coin.

Our evaluation took a long time, in part, because of the Core. We see the Core as the greatest threat to the industry's growth right now, because they are preventing the immediate expansion of capacity that we and others need to conduct business. I don't care whatsoever about what their grand vision is for the long-term future with bitcoin storing value or whatever. All people who use the network care about is whether they can use the network. Litecoin allows us to do that, which is why we conduct all our business in litecoins now.

Coinbase's addition of ETH and LTC was what made it viable for us to expand because we knew our business model would be affordable. Incidentally, it also guaranteed a multi-coin world because of how it is exposing everyday users to the improved fees and transaction times on those other networks.

So we come to the conclusion that other layers like ETH and LTC are inevitable for 2nd/3rd layer solutions, that is the reason i put a lot of faith in some of the altcoins. But what would BCH mean for BTC and/or the cryptocurrency world, rather than an intermediate solution?

You state that Core is a threat, but that would be the same like i would call your lawyer a threat to my mining hobby, that was unable to expand or run stable for months, but no i didn't, i'm fulfilled with patience in this upcoming technology and i'm pleased with your service. Instead of kicking against everything, most of the people around here try to help and support you guys, since you guys are doing a good job, because the service you guys setup and maintain.

If you don't care about the long-term, what do you even care for than? Is it the money? Would you be better off without crypto's, the internet or mobile phones? I guess i care about the long-term because it brings me a lot more fulfillment in life than the mindset of quick money and/or what comes in short time, it is at least 50% about the path towards the goal right, not the goal itself what brings prosperity; and of course i would be lying if i wasn't in for the money also, but i'm pleased to tell you my biggest concern wasn't money at all, but having something on my hands and fill my daytime with something i like and that is technology and raise my fist against the banking industry and current systems.

The major reason i'm against BCH and it's support is because of the mutiny, where and why did they stop and try reaching consensus with BTC to get a decent solution for scaling issues? If they ever take over it could be worth it, but with my knowledge and understanding of crypto's, i think they tried to attack BTC and are wasting energy in this way, the only thing it could help is to restart the conversation about scaling (but imo this isn't the reason why they started BCH). But still it is more of a personal war about future scaling solutions or a way to make money or power, what is both wrong.